| N.Y. App. Div. | Jan 15, 1909

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concurred, except McLennan, P. J., who dissented upon the ground that the agreement, if made, was in violation of the Interstate Commerce Act * and, therefore, not enforcible.

See 24 U. S. Stat. at Large, 379, chap. 104, § 1 et seq.; 25 id. 855, chap. 382; 33 id. 847, chap. 708. Since amd. by 34 id. 584 et seq., chap. 3591; Id. 838, Res. 47.—[Rep.

© 2024 Midpage AI does not provide legal advice. By using midpage, you consent to our Terms and Conditions.